In response to the ongoing “Turtle vs. Tata” controversy, about which I have written several articles, Kumi Naidoo, the executive director of Greenpeace International, today published an article on The Huffington Post. Entitled “Tsk Tsk TATA – Rise Above SLAPP Suits,” Mr. Naidoo responded to the lawsuit filed by Tata Industries against Greenpeace.
The overview of this case is, briefly, that Tata Industries is suing Greenpeace for the alleged misuse of the Tata trademark, and for defamation of character, in connection with a video game that Greenpeace produced to protest Tata’s involvement in the construction of a deep-water port in India. The port construction, Greenpeace claims, is too close to the nesting area of an endangered turtle species. According to DNA India, allegedly the video game 1) portrays the chairman of Tata as a less than savory character, 2) uses the Tata trademark, and 3) misrepresents the characters of India’s top grossing film, Sholay. You may read more details by reviewing my other articles on this topic.
In today’s Huffington Post article, Mr. Naidoo characterizes the Tata lawsuit as a SLAPP suit (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) and an effort by Tata to “shrink the democratic space” in a “David vs. Goliath” battle. I wasn’t surprised to see Mr. Naidoo say this. Through my experiences of watching Greenpeace, I’ve learned that such responses are pretty much SOP (standard operating procedure) for them and part of the general media strategy of this organization which, to me, is really more of a media machine than an activist group. Such responses are made often when there is any form of “counter-protest” to or push-back against Greenpeace.
As a result of Greenpeace India’s “Turtle vs. Tata” video game, it now looks like Greenpeace is going to have more than one lawsuit on its hands. The first lawsuit I discussed in my recent posts “Tatas Push Back” and “More Thoughts About Tatas,” where I wrote about how Greenpeace India has been sued in an Indian court over charges of trademark infringement and libel.
Briefly, Greenpeace India created a video game satirizing the owners of Tata Industries, which is involved in the construction of a deep-water port in India. The port construction, Greenpeace contends, is too close to a turtle nesting area, so the video game was created to put political pressure on Tata. Tata, which is reported to have all necessary government permits for the construction project, was not amused by the video game and decided to file suit against the NGO. For more details on the case, please review the two articles linked above.
Now there might be a second lawsuit.
In a DNA India article from yesterday, it was reported that the producers of India’s highest grossing film, Sholay, will take legal action against Greenpeace India over its “Turtle vs. Tata” video game. Apparently, the video game, in its depiction of the Tatas, also contained suggestions of or allusions to the characters depicted in Sholay. The producers’ complaints will be gross trademark violation and a wrongful use of the characters from the film. From DNA India:
Greenpeace’s animation is a violation of trademark copyright and underlying rights. They have . . . associated Sholay and all its characters in negative light. We, the owners of the characters, do not support Greenpeace’s views.
It is very irresponsible for an NGO to violate intellectual property rights of India’s most famous film and tarnish the image of our legendary characters.
- Sascha Sippy, chairman, Sholay Media and Entertainment
As I said in my earlier articles, it will be interesting to see how this plays out because the nature of this case differs significantly from similar legal challenges to activists in other nations.
Stay “tuned” to Telofski.com.
In case you’re not conversant with the names of some of the lesser known international conglomerates, TATA is one of the largest companies on the planet. The Tatas to which I refer in the title of this post are the members of the family who run the conglomerate, not a reference to an American bodacious colloquialism of anatomy.
Based in India, the conglomerate has operations in several industries including automotive and energy. Currently, the company’s steel division is engaged in the construction of a deep water port on the coast of India. According to DNA India, the port is said to be located less than 15 kilometers from the nesting area of the endangered Olive Ridley sea turtle. Now, from within the theme of what we discuss here on Telofski.com, that is to say irregular competition, you know what’s coming next. Yes. Enter Greenpeace.
Per the DNA India article, as part of Greenpeace India’s protest against the Tata construction activities, for which Tata says it has the necessary governmental clearances but which Greenpeace claims imperils an endangered species, Greenpeace India has promoted an online video game entitled “Turtle vs. Tata.” According to the article, in the video game, which apparently is similar to Pac-Man in its nature:
. . . the player is a turtle that has to eat as much healthy food as it can while avoiding the ‘Tata demons’ that threaten its home.
In response to this game, and Greenpeace’s promotion thereof, Tata has filed a trademark infringement and defamation lawsuit against Greenpeace. DNA India says that the Tata lawsuit, filed in Delhi High Court, claims:
The aim of the colorful and noisy video game is to help the yellow turtles eat as many little white dots as possible without running into Ratty (presumably after Ratan Tata, chairman of the Tata Group), Matty, Natty or Tinku… The NGO has not only infringed the trade mark rights of the TATA but is also maligning the reputation of the company, thereby injuring the same in their profession.
Greenpeace has been using these sorts of anti-corporate protest tactics for many years. In fact, that NGO is quite well-known for this type of approach to anti-corporate protest. So, to see a legal challenge pop up after all these years is quite interesting, and especially so since it will take place in the courts of a developing nation. When I think of this case, and how it might play out, I am reminded of the 1990s “Mc Libel” trial where Mc Donald’s in the U.K. sued two British activists for defamation. After a long court case, and a whole lot of publicity, Mc Donald’s ultimately won the case in court, but, as many have argued, probably lost in the court of public opinion. The monetary damages charged to the losing defendants were relatively miniscule given the value of the plaintiff’s corporate reputation, and in fact were reduced upon appeal to a higher court. In both business and activist
Continue reading Tatas Push Back
|
About  Here at " Richard Telofski on The War on Capitalism," I discuss and analyze the individuals and groups conducting campaigns against capitalism. In the articles on this site, I provide analysis on lesser known facts about this movement. More . . .
 |
Klout.com rates Richard as influential on the subject of activism. |
|
